Today the Albany Times Union ran a feature story on "some polls and surveys that put the Capital Region at the top — or bottom — of their lists." The story and illustration may be found here. We responded immediately, and our letter to the editor, which we expect to appear next week, is below.

To the Editor:

How ironic -- and disturbing – it is that, on the same day that you run an important story on the critical need to attract young girls into STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) careers, you feature a denigrating cartoon-like caricature of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute President Shirley Ann Jackson who Time magazine described as “perhaps the ultimate role model for women in science.”

Dr. Jackson has led an extraordinary transformation of Rensselaer during her 14-year tenure, elevating the Institute to a top-tier, world-class, globally recognized, research university. More than $1.25 billion has been invested in The Rensselaer Plan - including the physical transformation of the Troy campus, research funding has tripled, and there has been an exponential expansion of academic and impactful research programs, and the attraction of world-class people. This growth continues to have a significant economic impact on the region; creating new jobs, new companies, and new opportunities.

Dr. Jackson’s salary, set by the Board of Trustees, is a reflection of the value she brings to Rensselaer. Her salary is public information, and the Times Union can report it, but you also have the obligation to report it accurately; differentiating between annual salary and periodic accrued deferred compensation payments. And one would hope that you would have a sense of responsibility of putting it in the context of the value that she brings to the region.

Rensselaer is an attractor – of extraordinary students, world-class faculty, and global partners – because excellence attracts excellence. It is Dr. Jackson’s vision and dedicated efforts in leading Rensselaer and as a national spokesperson on important issues that have made it so. She is an asset to the region who should be celebrated, not denigrated.

Reading the first part of this I thought it was really ridiculous for them to respond to an article like this. Criticism like that is best to just ignore, whining about it makes you look childish. Then I read the part about reporting her salary accurately and thought, "Oh, they just want to correct a mistake." Then they don't actually mention her unreported salary and it's back to being childish.

It is ridiculous that the Times Union dare criticize her. She brings a lot to the school and the area, and I am extremely thankful that Ms. Jackson has decided to dedicate her entire professional life to furthering the interest of the school. Without her, RPI would be worthless.

I mean, I'm not really one of those "anti-Shirley" people (Her pay is a little high, and I think it could stand to be lowered a bit), but to be fair, the illustration does look like her. The reason it's "cartoon-like" is because that's the style of the art. In fact, her face looks more realistic and less "cartoon-like" than the rest of the art.

The biggest thing I find wrong with the article is this part:

Only about 25 percent of the 1,135 people surveyed said they were "very religious" while nearly 45 percent (oh yes, almost half) say they were not religious at all.

As if that's somehow a "bad thing." I'm not a militant atheist, but it's pretty annoying.

I wonder what percentage of alumni support Dr. Jackson. It'd be interested to see that number broken down by class year.

I find the "excellence attracts excellence" rebuttal to be quite comic. To me it implies Dr. Jackson is excellent, a term I most associate describing restaurants, hotels, and other service based industries... not really the descriptor I associate with leaders or people in general.

This would have totally flown under the radar if she hadn't written this letter. I read the TU issue in question and certainly didn't make any correlation between the STEM article and the Shirley bit. That being said, I think that SAJ's exempt-from-criticism attitude brings her down a notch on the STEM role model front.